Slashdot Mirror
EU Record Companies Push to Extend Copyright
TPIRman writes "European record companies, as represented by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, are pressuring the European Union to extend copyright terms for music producers. Critics like Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig are predictably opposed, but the IFPI argues that the move is needed in order to bring the E.U. in sync with U.S. copyright regulations. Ironically, one of the original rationales behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was that U.S. copyrights needed to sync up with European standards."
Never let one hand know what the other is doing and if discovered, deny all knowledge and blame the foot.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
But seriously - why would ANYONE want the kinds of copyright nonsense we have over here? Talk to your senator, congressman, or the equivalent (don't know how your system works :p ) and shoot this down!
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
Glad to see we are on the right track to a civilian uprising that will abolish copyright.
This is the last thing we need. Syncing up european and american copyright laws is not a reason to change laws. Laws should be passed to serve the people, not to follow others. I hope this doesn't happen.
Why bother coming back every 50 years when Mickey Mouse is about to expire and slapping another 50 years onto copyright terms?
Why not just make it 50 billion years and save Mickey Mouse from exploitation forever?
Unfortunately I can't argue for the unconstitutionality of these laws since we don't have a constitution here, but this copyright extension thing is stupid. Really stupid. We only just got Elvis in the public domain (is he even there yet?) from years and years ago. The UK even retroactively takes things out of the public domain, so if this passes we could lose that. (copy as much as you can, now, while you can).
I am trolling
is me pounding my face into the wall.
It's not all that ironic that the justifications overlap. These are the excuses they use. They start in the US with: "We need to Sync up with Europe." then they change something just slightly so that it's longer than Europe. Then they goto Europe and say: "We need to Sync up with America." Rinse, repeat.
- AMW
That's not irony, that's a deliberate strategy.
Do all nation's laws need to be in sync? Is it possible that one nation has made a grave error and that others should avoid doing the same? Why does our whole world now have a bad case of "keeping up with the Jones'" in relation to legal matters. We all have our own governments, why can't they seem to think independently anymore and make better decisions....
Damn globalization!
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
..... Shorter
Like say, authors life time or 50 years wich ever is greater and thats it....
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
Anyone in the UK really should take the time to write to their MP. Already this week we've seen a report in the Times saying that a labour MP is proposing to extend Copyright to be 100 years... ..."to protect the artist".
:-)
How they can say that with a straight face is beyond me. I guess the record industry makes it easier for them?
I wrote to my MP on Tuesday, and got a response the next day thanking me for my concerns, stating that he has read up on, and now understands the issue, and that they will discuss it with the Labour MP that is proposing the bill.
It might be mere platitudes to keep me oppressed, but it might just work. We are supposed to be in a democracy, although with the EU constitution "no" votes from France and the Netherlands, one does wonder if the hierarchy will merely push it through no matter what the public says.
No doubt someone will point out that this is EU policy which will need to be enacted in UK law, but all the same, make yourself heard. I did, and boy do I feel good about it
at least all the poor movie stars will be able to have their graves upgraded each year. Maybe we could have a letter box on their gravestones so they dont miss out on one cent.
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
The guy in the UK pushing this is James Purnell. If you live in the UK you should write to him.
Cunningham said that because the copyright term is longer in countries like the United States, Australia and Singapore, the European countries' copyright terms should be extended.
That's a pretty poor reason to change a law - just to be the same as someone else. There are lots of things that are good about European laws compared to the named countries, and we should fight to keep the good things the way they are, rather than giving in to greedy corporations.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Two words one never strings together.... understandable and wrong. This is, however, the perception of the EU's debate over the extension of length of copyrights. I will also preface my remarks by outright stating my anathema towards IP and its handling in the US.
That having been said....
Imagine for a moment that you are a patent holder in the US. You put out a product that does well in the US. Now imagine another patent holder from the EU. His product does well in the EU. Assuming both do well in their respective markets, the US patent holder garners revenue for use of the patent long after the EU patent holder does. What are EU innovators to do?
Leave the EU, that's what.
Aside from the right or wrong of IP, the EU seemingly wishes to address this long-term market value of a work and adjust to losing innovators overseas to the US. How to properly deal with that is another matter, but we must be careful to acknowledge all aspects of the issue.
The Crimson Dragon
For fuck's sake, is 50 years not long enough?! If you need that long to make enough profit on something to carry on doing business, then YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS FUCKED!
I am pushing to have unemployment benefits extended until 50 years after I die. Not only do I want to get paid for doing nothing now, but for at least 50 years after I have died so that my beneficiaries can also get paid for doing nothing.
Later I will be lobbying for an extension to that extension... in about 40 years from now.
While I disagree with how long copryrights have been extended here, I don't see what's wrong with the concept of consistency in global copyright laws. With inconsistent laws, the enforcement of copyrights from country to country would be chaotic at best.
Then again, you were probably just looking for a reason to take your daily swipe at "greedy" corporations.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Why don't we (the US) curtail our copyright terms in order to sync up with the EU?
Just a thought...
(I know, this is as silly as exercising more and eating less in order to lose weight.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
See my reply to the previous posting of this spam/troll post here:
d =12768928
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152166&ci
Thank you...
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Sure, a nice emotionally written troll but it asks for a simple reply still:
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple.
Brilliant.
Now, please come back when the music and movie industry have stopped stealing from society.
WHat do I mean by that?
The recording industry has for a long time prevented society to reap their side of the benefits from copyright: getting work into the public domain.
When copyright is reduced to a normal term, many people will have far less of a problem actually keeping to the rules.
Now, go find a new business model, one that actually works in the time you happen to live in, and tell your overlords to do the same.
In the EU, performers get 50 years copyright. 2005 minus fifty years is 1955, the dawn of the modern era of rock and pop. The late Elvis is the first big goose scheduled to stop laying golden eggs, but other huge ones loom over the next decade - the Beatles in particular.
No wonder the corps are pressing for extensions; why wouldn't they want indefinite copyrights? It's certainly in their interests, but it's most definitely not in the wider interestes of society at large. This proposal will do nothing to pomote the useful arts and sciences.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
The US was the first to suffer all the copyright bullshit because the US was the first to truely feel the real pressures of the information age. But, when push comes to shove, Eorocrats and Canadacrats, are just as susceptable to corrupt political bullshit if not moreso than anyone else.
I say this because allot of US people are hopeing that other countries will fight the copyright battle for them. I say the opposite is true, we need to get rid of copyrights here first and the rest of the world will take care of itself in due time.
WIRED ARTICLE
[1]
There needs to be more of a balance when considering changes to copyright terms, said Rufus Pollock, director of Friends of the Creative Domain
[2]
Cunningham said that because the copyright term is longer in countries like the United States, Australia and Singapore, the European countries' copyright terms should be extended.
WIKIPEDIA
[1]
Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790, that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry, and that some works would be created under perpetual copyright that would never be created under time
[2]
Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, noted that "Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever", but that since she was "informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution", Congress might consider Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day"
I'm loving the tactics the *PAA uses. Pay off the politicians in one country to extended copyright length. Then lobby other coutnries to do the same so copyright lengths can be "in sync". Then, repeat the process over and over again until the whole premiss of limited copyright and public domain are out the door.
That's just about right.
It also explains why the new constitution got such bad press, it attempted to fix things and give more power to the elected parliament... what a disgrace. Bring back the good old tyrans instead.
The worst thing was that the people campaigning against the new constitution claimed that european institutions were broken, so let's not fix them!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is? Don't fix it and keep complaining... that will help.
TODO: 753) write sig.
14 years with one renewal for another 14 year = 28 years..
1790: Copyright Act of 1790
The First Congress implemented the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in 1790. The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies, was modeled on the Statute of Anne (1710). It granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years and to renew for another fourteen. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain." Major revisions to the act were implemented in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976.
from A History of Copyright in the United States
You seem to take for granted that the music industry should always exist as it is now, where people goes to buy music at the music store instead of just subscribing to far more convenient solutions such as the iTunes online store and many others. Do you really think that all of your problems come from piracy?
What I see from your post is simply that you are having a bad time, but instead of trying to get the money from the few customers that do come to buy CDs, you kick them out because you believe them to be pirates. You're playing the judge without a trial. No matter how much you twist it.
By the way, your blacklist law proposal is crap. Who is going to add names to that list... you? Because you think you're right? And what if you are not right and the kid was just trying to sound cool or something?
diegoT
The problem with copyright is that its becoming a commodity. How long until artists can float copyright on an open market? That seems to be the end game for media corporations who consider copyrighted works stock.
But thats not what copyright was for. Copyright was designed to protect artists from having their works exploited without fair remuneration i.e. stop this kind of thing happening. It seems to me that this current legislation will do nothing but further enslave the creative - as their works become the property of someone else for longer, instead of being free to inspire more arts in the public domain.
Why would a company employ an artist in these situations? Supply and demand. If you are producing a work for someone you are doing them a favor, not the other way around. If they could do it themselves, they would - such is the nature of a free market. Why people who pay for the works think they own it, is beyond me. You commision a painting you own the painting. You copy the painting, no harm is done. You sell the copy, you owe the artist an agreed percentage/lump sum.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
As upset as I get when I read stuff like this, eventually my head clears up and I remember that in order for a music company to hold the rights to a song, a band/musician needs to sign it over to them. Are we really going to be worse off not being able to d/l Britney Spears songs for 70-100 years? I realize that there are some bands that already made the mistake of choosing this path, but too bad for them. They got greedy and now their music will not be heard as much as, lets say, bands that allow their music to be put on http://archive.org/. I'm probably one of the few jamband fans on /., but I know the bands I listen to enjoy playing music and enjoy other listening to it. Yes they will have CD's to buy, but they will also allow you to record their live shows(better then prerecorded anyway, the test of a good band). And although I'm not sure, I think they make more money from people coming out to see them play then from CD/T-SHirt sales. So again, if you want to keep all the crap music away from the public for 100 years, I say THANK YOU.
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
Ok, so I didn't RTFA, an' I'm gonna rant, so I'll burn in hell, but here goes anyway
BULLSHIT! All this "get the copyright laws in sync" is bullshit. Isn't it obvious? There's no irony here, just sadness personified--great big lobby groups on both sides of the pond steamrollering over as much public domain / creative commons stuff as they possibly can and using really, really weak "rationals" to pretend to justify it.
The "get the laws in sync" thing carries no weight. Suppose I support law A. But my country doesn't have law A, my country has A-lite--well then I'm definitely gonna be arguing to "get the laws in sync" duh. OTOH, suppose my country has law A, the other country has law A-lite, and I like A-lite better--well then I can make the exact same, damn argument.
Now suppose I hate law A-lite, and my country's the one with law A--then instead I'll be arguing, "woah! Let's not change things! That country's got law A and it's all full of vermin and lice and bad stuff 'cause of it! One of the great things about our nation is we have law A instead of A-lite.
I'm probably not explaining myself very clearly, but I hope I'm making at least an A-lite level of sense.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Maybe, because the constitution is not yet in force?
If you are lucky enough to live in one of the countries where your opinion is asked, read part II, article 77, paragraph 2:
Now, contrast this with the US constitution: What's missing in the EU version?- Reference to promoting progress
- Absence of term limits
===> So once the constitution is approved, the EU record companies will be able to buy laws and directives giving them perpetual copyright. They won't need to play any Sonny Bono games, where they extend copyright Salami-like, 20 years more every 20 years. They wil be able to go straight away for eternity!"wouldnt it just make sense of copyrights simply extend to the lifespan of their creator"
IMHO it would make much more sense if copyrights lasted for a set number of years after publication of a work. Copyright enables an author to earn money with a work. If an author is incapable of capitalizing on publication of the work within a set amount of time, what use is it to grant him extra time?
Currently, copyright is implemented as a welfare system.
Now who are the Real Pirates?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Most people know the Bono Act extended copyright, but few know the specifics. In most of the world all recordings made before 1954 are in the public domain. But thanks to the Bono Act, in the U.S. all sound recordings made before 1972 are now copyrighted until 2067. This applies even to the earliest recordings on wax cylinders and discs made in the 1890s, which Sony now claims the rights to. That's more than 170 years of copyright protection for those items.
The old world aristocracy claimed that it had the divine right to own and control everything, because God in his wisdom determined everyone's place in life. That was the rationalization, but the plain and simple reason was that they had armed soldiers working for them to enforce their decrees. And in spite of the modern rhetoric that's exactly the way it still is today.
Since "intellectual property" is being treated by the law more and more as if it were physical property, then perhaps it should be taxed like physical property (real estate tax, etc.) too. An interesting discussion of this can be found at Copyright Term Reform/Taxation. I doubt the movement to reduce copyright terms will have any effect, so this seems like the next best thing, which (because it would mean more revenue for the government) might have a tiny chance in hell of actually happening. The idea of yet more taxes doesn't particularly thrill me in and of itself, but read this article and see what you think.